Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter

Decision Date03 October 1966
Docket NumberNo. 24528,24528
Citation407 S.W.2d 575
PartiesKEARNEY COMMERCIAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Madonna R. DEITER (Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis L. Deiter, deceased), and First National Bank of Liberty, Missouri, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Sevier & Turnage, Liberty, for appellant.

James, McFarland & Trimble, by James G. Trimble, North Kansas City, for Madonna R. Deiter.

CROSS, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Kearney Commercial Bank appeals from a judgment of the circuit court dismissing its petition to invoke the equitable remedy of interpleader by requiring defendant Madonna R. Deiter, Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis L. Deiter, deceased, and defendant First National Bank of Liberty, Missouri, to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims to the sum of $9,700.80, held by plaintiff bank as a deposit to the account of defendant administratrix. The controversy arose upon facts here set out.

Lewis L. Deiter, resident of Clay County, Missouri, died on July 17, 1965, owning property consisting principally of 68 head of cattle and a bank account inventoried as in the amount of $1,977.73, on deposit with defendant First National Bank of Liberty, Missouri, hereinafter sometimes designated as 'First National'. Administration of the estate was duly instituted by application for and issuance of letters of administration to decedent's daughter, Madonna R. Deiter. The 68 head of casttle were sold at private sale (subsequently approved by the probate court) for the sum of $9,468.92, which was deposited in plaintiff bank (sometimes hereinafter referred to as 'Kearney Commercial') to the account of Madonna R. Deiter, as administratrix of her deceased father's estate.

Thereafter First National informed Kearney Commercial by letters that it (First National) had a chattel mortgage on certain cattle owned by deceased; that such mortgaged cattle had been sold without mortgagor's consent; that the sale proceeds were on deposit in Kearney Commercial to the credit of Madonna R. Deiter, as administratrix; and, that First National considered itself to have an equitable lien on the deposit and claimed to be the owner thereof. After receipt of this information, Kearney Commercial refused payment of a check drawn by the administratrix on the estate account in the amount of $2,300.00 payable to her mother, Mrs. Lewis L. (Charlotte C.) Deiter, widow of decedent, as and for one year's support allowance previously ordered by the probate court.

Following this refusal to honor her check drawn upon the estate account, the administratrix instituted a proceeding in the probate court to discover assets in the hands of Kearney Commercial under provisions of Section 473.340 V.A.M.S. That proceeding progressed to a hearing in which appearances were made on behalf of Kearney Commercial, the administratrix, and First National, by their respective counsel. Testimony of one witness was heard--that of Cecil Turnage, Kearney Commercial's cashier. He was preliminarily examined by counsel for administratrix and cross examined by counsel for Kearney Commercial and also by counsel for First National. The substance of the cashier's testimony was that there was 'an obligation on behalf of the Kearney Commercial Bank to a depositor under the name of Madonna R. Deiter, Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis L. Deiter, deceased' in the amount of $9,700.80; that Kearney Commercial had refused to pay funds of Charlotte Deiter, widow of decedent, for one year's living allowance on the administratrix' check in the amount of $2300.00 and was still refusing to pay the check because the First National was making claim to the deposit fund as proceeds of a sale of some cattle on which it held a chattel mortgage, by reason of which it had a superior lien on the administratrix' account; that except for such claim by First National Kearney Commercial would have paid the $2300.00 check drawn by administratrix; and, further, that Kearney Commercial had no claim of ownership of any amount of the account.

At the conclusion of the cashier's testimony, counsel for all three parties addressed the court. Counsel for the administratrix moved for summary judgment 'in order to get that money paid to the administratrix'. Counsel for Kearney Commercial informed the court that his client was in the position of a stakeholder, had no claim to the funds, and had no objection to paying the money to 'somebody', but was faced with the claim of the First National and didn't want to have to pay it a second time. Counsel for First National argued to the court against the propriety of the proceeding, admitted that First National's claim gave rise to the controversy, agreed that Kearney Commercial was a mere stakeholder, and requested specific relief from the court as follows:

'Now, if the court does entertain or make a summary judgment at this time in connection with this matter, I would like to have the right to insist on another bond being submitted; because I question the validity of that particular bond that's in the estate, right now. I don't recall how much it's for'.

At the conclusion of the hearing the probate court rendered no decision but took the matter under advisement pending receipt of answers to interrogatories the administratrix had propounded to Kearney Commercial.

Two days after the hearing above noted Kearney Commercial commenced this suit in circuit court by filing its 'petition in interpleader' said by its author to be 'in conventional form'. The pleading contains allegations of fact substantially as heretofore set out in this opinion, indicating that each of the within named defendants claims to be the owner of the $9,700.80 bank deposit held by plaintiff bank. The petition further alleges that plaintiff is in doubt as to which claimant is entitled to the fund, that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay it over to the person lawfully entitled thereto, that each of the defendants has threatened suit against plaintiff to recover the sum in dispute, and that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law 'and may be subjected to multiple liability for a single liability'. The prayer of the petition is that plaintiff be allowed to bring the $9,700.80 into court and that the defendant administratrix and the defendant First National be required to answer and interplead with each other to determine who is entitled to receive payment of the account held by plaintiff.

Subsequent to service of summons upon it as a party defendant and filing answer in the interpleader action, First National submitted its claim to the Probate Court of Clay County by filing therein its demand for payment of promissory notes executed by decedent aggregating $10,369.15, described as 'secured by a chattel mortgage executed by the deceased'. The demand states that 'all cash assets shown in the inventory and appraisement in said estate as being received from the sale of livestock are subject to the lien of said chattel mortgage inasmuch as said proceeds were received from the sale of livestock included under the terms and provisions of said chattel mortgage'. An additional amount of $1777.73 was claimed in the event offset credits on certain of the notes taken from decedent's account in the stated amount should be disallowed.

Defendant administratrix filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition in interpleader on alleged grounds (1) that a prior action was pending in the probate court between the same parties for the same cause and (2) that the circuit court was without jurisdiction because the probate court had exclusive original jurisdiction of probate matters and afforded plaintiff an adequate remedy for its relief under Section 473.357 V.A.M.S. Defendant First National in its answer admitted the allegations of plaintiff's petition, alleged affirmatively that it was entitled to the funds and 'joined with plaintiff in praying that the court order both defendants to file their respective interpleas asserting their respective claims to the funds on deposit'.

One hearing was held by the circuit court in the interpleader suit, in which all three parties appeared, defendant administratrix's motion to dismiss was submitted to the court and documentary exhibits were identified and admitted as evidence in the case. These exhibits include (1) the entire probate court file in Case No. 5139, same being the administration proceedings in the estate of Lewis R. Deiter, (2) transcript of the hearing held pursuant to the administratrix's discovery proceeding against Kearney Commercial (previously referred to) and (3) transcript of a hearing pursuant to discovery proceeding instituted in probate court by the administratrix agent First National involving a bank deposit controversy (which has no material bearing on the issues in the instant case). No oral testimony was heard. On a day subsequent to the hearing the circuit court entered a judgment of dismissal by sustaining 'defendant Madonna R. Deiter's motion to dismiss'.

Appellant's brief presents one point--that the dismissal of its petition constituted error. To support this contention appellant argues (1) that there was no pending action in the probate court between the same parties for the same cause, and (2) that 'the exclusive jurisdiction of an interpleader suit is in the Circuit Court, and--the subject of the conflicting claims being assets of an estate pending in the Probate Court does not rob the Circuit Court of its jurisdiction in these cases'.

It is argued on behalf of responding defendant Deiter that the dismissal of plaintiff's petition was proper because 'another action was already pending in the probate court between the same parties in the same cause as the cause involved in this action'. This she identified as the discovery proceeding against Kearney Commercial and argues that First National entered its appearance therein as a claimant to the identical deposit fund in the hands of Kearney...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • In re Broadview Lumber Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 28 Junio 1994
    ...(Mo.Ct.App.1988); Stanovsky v. Group Enterprise & Constr. Co., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Mo.Ct.App.1986); Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575, 581-82 (Mo.Ct.App.1966); Boeving v. Vandover, 218 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Mo.Ct.App. 1949); Latshaw v. Simpson, 162 S.W.2d 635, 637 Here, th......
  • Craig v. Jo B. Gardner, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Septiembre 1979
    ...Hill has no right to press his claim for recovery in the interpleader action, since the latter sounds in equity, Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.App.1966), and quantum meruit is a suit at law. We note that an action for an attorney's lien is one in equity, rather than ......
  • Estate of Livingston
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 20 Enero 1982
    ...held that a discovery proceeding in probate court, ... is a suit or action within the meaning of the law." Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575, 581 (Mo.App.1966). Also see Davis v. Johnson, 332 Mo. 417, 58 S.W.2d 746 (1933), in which an administrator was substituted for a dece......
  • Mitchell's Estate, Matter of
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 16 Diciembre 1980
    ...context, the issue of the proper holder of title is considered to be an issue at law rather than equity. See, Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575, 581 (Mo.App.1966); In re Petersen's Estate, 295 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Mo.1956). Historically and by statute this legal issue rightfully......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT